Judiciary Charges 2019

[lazza]

I have no idea where you got the idea the point of the system is about injuries.

The point of the system is to penalise play which falls outside the rules of the game.

Tripping is outside the rules of the game.
Hair pulling is outside the rules of the game (contrary conduct).

The players who most recently committed these acts had a litany of charges throughout the season which rendered them unable to receive a fine for their minor charges, then with loading they were subject to a suspension.

It's pretty simple as Danish has indicated, don't be a peanut and you won't get suspended.

I agree with them all being peanuts... and agree injuries happen.

The rules of the game is also there to protect players otherwise high tackles would be allowed. I'm just trying to point out that storm tactics is systemic and planned. Pulling hair is more of a spur of the moment thing cos you cant punch - in the old days they woulda had a punch up and 10 in the bin. but to miss a finals game is a bit harsher. Tripping was a reaction thing and he barely connected - just idiotic but a penalty woulda been sufficient imho.

Yet a prowler tackle on an exposed back had the possibility of sidelining someone - there are cases of broken backs (https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/la...s-past-gold-coast-titans-20160827-gr2qyu.html), pressing on someone's temples are planned - probably trained for and they get away with it... hold a bit of the jersey to mask it from pressing the temple. Whats worse is that the NRL knew about it and sent a letter rather than suspending or even fining Smith.

Just comparing how equitable the juridiciary system really is.

 

[typicalfan]

So 2 absolute peanuts will have missed finals in 2019 because of committing 1 too many peanut acts.

The system seems like it’s working to me

Is a reactionary trip a peanut act or just an accident? Maybe the NRL can just change the rule that an amount of fines results in a suspension and just continue to fine him so a peanut act in Round 3 results in a fine and he plays round 4 but a peanut act in a preliminary final results in potentially missing a grand final.

The NRLs own rules and policies hurts its own brand by doing this yet JWH is the peanut.

 

[TheFrog]

Is a reactionary trip a peanut act or just an accident? Maybe the NRL can just change the rule that an amount of fines results in a suspension and just continue to fine him so a peanut act in Round 3 results in a fine and he plays round 4 but a peanut act in a preliminary final results in potentially missing a grand final.

The NRLs own rules and policies hurts its own brand by doing this yet JWH is the peanut.

Of 136 players who played first grade last weekend, only one was charged with a trip. You can callit reactionary, but the other 135 all managed to avoid doing it, since it is illegal under the rules of the game. He had the advantage of knowing that another player had been suspended a few weeks back under identical circumstances. No sympathy for the bloke whatsoever. And yes he is a peanut, or pea-brain if you like.

 

[typicalfan]

Of 136 players who played first grade last weekend, only one was charged with a trip. You can callit reactionary, but the other 135 all managed to avoid doing it, since it is illegal under the rules of the game. He had the advantage of knowing that another player had been suspended a few weeks back under identical circumstances. No sympathy for the bloke whatsoever. And yes he is a peanut, or pea-brain if you like.

I have no sympathy, I just see the flaw in the process. I never said he shouldn't have been penalised.

 

[Saxon]

It was his kidneys, and this is a Storm tactic.

Storm tactic my ass.
I give you exhibit 1; Riley Brown on Craig Wing

 

[lazza]

Storm tactic my ass.
I give you exhibit 1; Riley Brown on Craig Wing

Wow good memory...

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2008-03-17/brown-in-the-clear-over-wing-tackle/1075354

10 years ago vs 1 round ago. But doesn’t make it right.

 

[Danish]

Is a reactionary trip a peanut act or just an accident? Maybe the NRL can just change the rule that an amount of fines results in a suspension and just continue to fine him so a peanut act in Round 3 results in a fine and he plays round 4 but a peanut act in a preliminary final results in potentially missing a grand final.

The NRLs own rules and policies hurts its own brand by doing this yet JWH is the peanut.

His other suspensions this year weren’t reactionary trips. It’s those peanut acts that cost him. As they did Sam.

What I would remove from the judiciary is the stupid “early plea” reductions. They lead to way too many players and clubs copping a charge they probably could have got off just because they didn’t want to risk an increased penalty if they lost.

 

[Wily Ole Dog]

Unless I’m loosing my mind I seem to recall other players sticking their legs out in a Trip motion this season and not been suspended

The MRC is so inconsistent in its citings it leads people to think it is a kangaroo court

 

[BranVan3000]

The problem - and we all know it’s a problem, is the points loading and treating missing a finals match like any other match

 

[yobbo84]

You should need 150 points to miss a final, 200 for a grand final, etc

 

[Captain Apollo]

You should need 150 points to miss a final, 200 for a grand final, etc

Michael Ennis suggested something similar to this last week on Fox Sports.

 

[no name]

You should need 150 points to miss a final, 200 for a grand final, etc

Just be a retiring ‘legend’ and you can do what you want in the finals.

 

[typicalfan]

You should need 150 points to miss a final, 200 for a grand final, etc

This is something I have wanted for a while, I think it has merit. Origin games should be 200 too.

 

[nick87]

You should need 150 points to miss a final, 200 for a grand final, etc

Yeah i've long proposed a tiered system.
The points system right now treats each game the same, which is fine, except the MRC and Judiciary dont consistently apply that same standard... players routinely seem to get lighter charges or succeed in getting off with no penalty because it's rep footy time or finals time when you know if that incident occurred in week 2, there is no chance they'd be free to play

The best answer here is to simply accept that not all games are made equal.
Hudson Young is going to get to miss a trial game and claim that as one of his weeks... which is equally absurd

It should be something like
50 points for a trial game
100 points for regular season
150 points for Week 1-3 finals
200 points for GF/SOO/International games

Now you can just charge and rule on players without fear of rubbing them out of a major game for a minor incident. If someone does something that warrants a charge of more than 200 points, well they deserve to miss that big game

 

[Lebbo73]

They are too busy trying to sanitise the game to appeal to those that will never watch it anyway.

Yep and in the process they’re losing their base who support the game through thick and thin.
A ball runner falls in a tackle and crashes into the front shoulder of a defender. Two or three weeks for an accident when all the tackler was trying to do was tackle him.

 

[Lebbo73]

What is worse? Which may have caused an injury to an opponent which is the point of the suspension system:

- Smiths wingnut which led to a letter
- Kaufusi shot on hodgesons liver while someone holding him up
- burgess pulling hair
- jwh attempted trip

Everyone applauds tough defence. Most people hate it when the defender tries to inflict pain on the attacker when he’s defenceless and the sole aim is a cheap shot to a vulnerable part of the body.

 

[Lebbo73]

I agree with them all being peanuts... and agree injuries happen.

The rules of the game is also there to protect players otherwise high tackles would be allowed. I'm just trying to point out that storm tactics is systemic and planned. Pulling hair is more of a spur of the moment thing cos you cant punch - in the old days they woulda had a punch up and 10 in the bin. but to miss a finals game is a bit harsher. Tripping was a reaction thing and he barely connected - just idiotic but a penalty woulda been sufficient imho.

Yet a prowler tackle on an exposed back had the possibility of sidelining someone - there are cases of broken backs (https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/la...s-past-gold-coast-titans-20160827-gr2qyu.html), pressing on someone's temples are planned - probably trained for and they get away with it... hold a bit of the jersey to mask it from pressing the temple. Whats worse is that the NRL knew about it and sent a letter rather than suspending or even fining Smith.

Just comparing how equitable the juridiciary system really is.

The problem is that Surgess and JWH are getting charged for something every second or third game they play. Should the fines imposed get harsher for each minor offence instead of a suspension?

 

[Wily Ole Dog]

If it’s the same offence, yes

 

[yobbo84]

Yeah i've long proposed a tiered system.
The points system right now treats each game the same, which is fine, except the MRC and Judiciary dont consistently apply that same standard... players routinely seem to get lighter charges or succeed in getting off with no penalty because it's rep footy time or finals time when you know if that incident occurred in week 2, there is no chance they'd be free to play

The best answer here is to simply accept that not all games are made equal.
Hudson Young is going to get to miss a trial game and claim that as one of his weeks... which is equally absurd

It should be something like
50 points for a trial game
100 points for regular season
150 points for Week 1-3 finals
200 points for GF/SOO/International games

Now you can just charge and rule on players without fear of rubbing them out of a major game for a minor incident. If someone does something that warrants a charge of more than 200 points, well they deserve to miss that big game

Yep.

So say JWH's trip - he gets 130 points for an early guilty plea. Gets to play in the prelim.

Say he does something stupid in the prelim that earns him another 130 points - now he misses the GF as he's accumulated 260 points. If he doesn't do anything in the prelim, he gets to play the GF, but then misses Round 1 next year.

 

[Someguy]

Yep.

So say JWH's trip - he gets 130 points for an early guilty plea. Gets to play in the prelim.

Say he does something stupid in the prelim that earns him another 130 points - now he misses the GF as he's accumulated 260 points. If he doesn't do anything in the prelim, he gets to play the GF, but then misses Round 1 next year.

Nah it just be miss 2 trail games